Similes, juxtapositions & Pound's poem

[Senna Jawa]

1. The popular syntax of the simile and juxtaposition

Simile has syntax:

A (is) like B​

or

A (is) as B​

while juxtaposition is just this, like:

A
B
​

In reality the things are less crisp because the notions like metaphor, simile, juxtaposition and kenning do not have perfectly defined boarders; but never mind.

While syntax is a useful, simple prompt, it's not the best way to look at similes and juxtapositions. The semantical way is more profound:

2. The semantics of the simile and juxtaposition

First, whenever we put two things: A & B, together in a text, side by side as in "A B" or "A like B" or "A as B" ..., then we may speak about textual juxtaposition. They are the most general juxtapositions in this discussion. They split into two categories: (1) the (semantic) simile, (2) the semantic juxtaposition. In what follows the semantic juxtaposition will be called simply juxtaposition.

Now I define the simile as a textual juxtaposition of two components A B such that only one of them is an actual part of the material presented by the text; and a (semantic) juxtaposition is a textual juxtaposition both parts of which are material for the poem. For instance, the phrase "a girl beautiful like a doll" is a simile when the doll or the girl is not a part of the scene. On the other hand, if both the girl and the doll have materially appeared in the poem then we would have a semantic juxtaposition regardless of the syntax.

Let me introduce my final definition:l a semantic simile which syntacticly looks like a juxtaposition is a false juxtaposition.

("False" does not have to mean "bad").


3. Ezra Pound's poem

Now, let's look at the Pound's poem:

In a Station of the Metro

The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
Petals on a wet, black bough.
​

Pound was aiming at the oriental style and effect but instead of the semantical juxtaposition he ended up with syntactical, he ended up with semantical simile. Thus Pound has faked the real thing. (I said "faked", not "fucked up"). No wonder that later he was talking about the poem a lot; he had to feel that something was not quite right.

You see that these seemingly innocent topic is not as simple as it looks. No wonder that Pound being new to the oriental ways was like in fog. Nobody before me put this things so clearly. And talentless and clueless guys like andy will continue to talk their shambo-mambo and bullshit. Yeah, sure, get more awards, andy ; go, get publised (sic! -- published) more

Regards,

Senna Jawa (Wlodzimierz Holsztynski)

 

[annaswirls]

goodness gracious boys, can we just arm wrestle and get on with it?

 

[Angeline]

Senna, I know you've explained this before but I would be very interested in a cogent definition of kenning as you understand it (maybe with an example or two if you have some). I'd look it up myself, but I'm working on a computer that can't seem to open more than one window at a time (it has windows 98, but it malfunctions regularly).

Thanks in advance for any info you can provide.

Peace,
Angeline

 

[Angeline]

Ok, so I managed to open another window without my computer dying and I found the follwoing explanation of kenning:

Kennings

The kenning is an Anglo-Saxon literary device, very common in Anglo-Saxon poetry, in which a new noun or noun phrase is coined to replace a more familiar noun. Examples from Anglo-Saxon poetry including calling the sea the whaleroad, a sword a battlefriend, the body a bonehouse. Essentially, they are metaphorical circumlocutions, describing a well-known noun in a new way which gives information about its qualities and characteristics. In contemporary poetry and in developing understanding of poetry with young writers the kenning forces displacement of the familiar and invites deeper thinking about how to describe and encapsulate the ordinary in an extraordinary way.

Now this makes sense to me, but I'm failing to understand how kenning is different from metaphor except that kennings (according to this definition) are used with nouns. If I refer to "fingers" as "twigs," for example, am I using a kenning? A metaphor? Both?

 

[champagne1982]

Ok, so I managed to open another window without my computer dying and I found the follwoing explanation of kenning:

Kennings

The kenning is an Anglo-Saxon literary device, very common in Anglo-Saxon poetry, in which a new noun or noun phrase is coined to replace a more familiar noun. Examples from Anglo-Saxon poetry including calling the sea the whaleroad, a sword a battlefriend, the body a bonehouse. Essentially, they are metaphorical circumlocutions, describing a well-known noun in a new way which gives information about its qualities and characteristics. In contemporary poetry and in developing understanding of poetry with young writers the kenning forces displacement of the familiar and invites deeper thinking about how to describe and encapsulate the ordinary in an extraordinary way.

Now this makes sense to me, but I'm failing to understand how kenning is different from metaphor except that kennings (according to this definition) are used with nouns. If I refer to "fingers" as "twigs," for example, am I using a kenning? A metaphor? Both?

I think your example is a metaphor, if you had refered to fingers as twigbones it would work. I believe you need to find a new word that serves as a metaphor but yet describes the noun without referencing an actual image. ie: Twig makes me think of tree or shrub whereas twigbones juxtaposes the tree onto animal to arrive at claws or fingers if you follow it through a logical progression.

 

[MyNecroticSnail]

1. The popular syntax of the simile and juxtaposition

Simile has syntax:

A (is) like B​

or

A (is) as B​

while juxtaposition is just this, like:

A
B
​

In reality the things are less crisp because the notions like metaphor, simile, juxtaposition and kenning do not have perfectly defined boarders; but never mind.

While syntax is a useful, simple prompt, it's not the best way to look at similes and juxtapositions. The semantical way is more profound:

2. The semantics of the simile and juxtaposition

First, whenever we put two things: A & B, together in a text, side by side as in "A B" or "A like B" or "A as B" ..., then we may speak about textual juxtaposition. They are the most general juxtapositions in this discussion. They split into two categories: (1) the (semantic) simile, (2) the semantic juxtaposition. In what follows the semantic juxtaposition will be called simply juxtaposition.

Now I define the simile as a textual juxtaposition of two components A B such that only one of them is the actual part of the material presented by the text; and a (semantic) juxtaposition is a textual juxtaposition both parts of which are material for the poem. For instance, the phrase "a girl beautiful like a doll" is a simile when the doll or the girl is not a part of the scene. On the other hand, if both the girl and the doll have materially appeared in the poem then we would have a semantic juxtaposition regardless of the syntax.

Let me introduce my final definition:l a semantic simile which syntacticly looks like a juxtaposition is a false juxtaposition.

("False" does not have to mean "bad").


3. Ezra Pound's poem

Now, let's look at the Pound's poem:

In a Station of the Metro

The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
Petals on a wet, black bough.
​

Pound was aiming at the oriental style and effect but instead of the semantical juxtaposition he ended up with syntactical, he ended up with semantical simile. Thus Pound has faked the real thing. (I said "faked", not "fucked up"). No wonder that later he was talking about the poem a lot; he had to feel that something was not quite right.

You see that these seemingly innocent topic is not as simple as it looks. No wonder that Pound being new to the oriental ways was like in fog. Nobody before me put this things so clearly.

Regards,

Senna Jawa (Wlodzimierz Holsztynski)

Excellent. My understanding is that he was doing a character by character translation and then rewriting. The feel and the form cannot be there. There is no way to translate tonal patterns from Chinese to English. And it is diffucult to translate the common cultural references from either Japan or China in the context of a poem.

In the Dreams of the Red Chamber I have been told that there are poems that can be read backwards, is that true?

 

[Cub4ucme]

1. The popular syntax of the simile and juxtaposition

Simile has syntax:

A (is) like B​

or

A (is) as B​

while juxtaposition is just this, like:

A
B
​

In reality the things are less crisp because the notions like metaphor, simile, juxtaposition and kenning do not have perfectly defined boarders; but never mind.

While syntax is a useful, simple prompt, it's not the best way to look at similes and juxtapositions. The semantical way is more profound:

2. The semantics of the simile and juxtaposition

First, whenever we put two things: A & B, together in a text, side by side as in "A B" or "A like B" or "A as B" ..., then we may speak about textual juxtaposition. They are the most general juxtapositions in this discussion. They split into two categories: (1) the (semantic) simile, (2) the semantic juxtaposition. In what follows the semantic juxtaposition will be called simply juxtaposition.

Now I define the simile as a textual juxtaposition of two components A B such that only one of them is the actual part of the material presented by the text; and a (semantic) juxtaposition is a textual juxtaposition both parts of which are material for the poem. For instance, the phrase "a girl beautiful like a doll" is a simile when the doll or the girl is not a part of the scene. On the other hand, if both the girl and the doll have materially appeared in the poem then we would have a semantic juxtaposition regardless of the syntax.

Let me introduce my final definition:l a semantic simile which syntacticly looks like a juxtaposition is a false juxtaposition.

("False" does not have to mean "bad").


3. Ezra Pound's poem

Now, let's look at the Pound's poem:

In a Station of the Metro

The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
Petals on a wet, black bough.
​

Pound was aiming at the oriental style and effect but instead of the semantical juxtaposition he ended up with syntactical, he ended up with semantical simile. Thus Pound has faked the real thing. (I said "faked", not "fucked up"). No wonder that later he was talking about the poem a lot; he had to feel that something was not quite right.

You see that these seemingly innocent topic is not as simple as it looks. No wonder that Pound being new to the oriental ways was like in fog. Nobody before me put this things so clearly. And talentless and clueless guys like andy will continue to talk their shambo-mambo and bullshit. Yeah, sure, get more awards, andy ; go, get publised (sic! -- published) more

Regards,

Senna Jawa (Wlodzimierz Holsztynski)

So, now you think coming here and calling me clueless is a means for you to
continue on you strange path?


Here Senna:


http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0333-5372(199321)14:1<1:PANSSS>2.0.CO;2-3

Boderline plagarism. You are without conscience.

best,
andy

 

[Maria2394]

1. The popular syntax of the simile and juxtaposition

Simile has syntax:

A (is) like B​

or

A (is) as B​

while juxtaposition is just this, like:

A
B
​

In reality the things are less crisp because the notions like metaphor, simile, juxtaposition and kenning do not have perfectly defined boarders; but never mind.

While syntax is a useful, simple prompt, it's not the best way to look at similes and juxtapositions. The semantical way is more profound:

2. The semantics of the simile and juxtaposition

First, whenever we put two things: A & B, together in a text, side by side as in "A B" or "A like B" or "A as B" ..., then we may speak about textual juxtaposition. They are the most general juxtapositions in this discussion. They split into two categories: (1) the (semantic) simile, (2) the semantic juxtaposition. In what follows the semantic juxtaposition will be called simply juxtaposition.

Now I define the simile as a textual juxtaposition of two components A B such that only one of them is the actual part of the material presented by the text; and a (semantic) juxtaposition is a textual juxtaposition both parts of which are material for the poem. For instance, the phrase "a girl beautiful like a doll" is a simile when the doll or the girl is not a part of the scene. On the other hand, if both the girl and the doll have materially appeared in the poem then we would have a semantic juxtaposition regardless of the syntax.

Let me introduce my final definition:l a semantic simile which syntacticly looks like a juxtaposition is a false juxtaposition.

("False" does not have to mean "bad").


3. Ezra Pound's poem

Now, let's look at the Pound's poem:

In a Station of the Metro

The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
Petals on a wet, black bough.
​

Pound was aiming at the oriental style and effect but instead of the semantical juxtaposition he ended up with syntactical, he ended up with semantical simile. Thus Pound has faked the real thing. (I said "faked", not "fucked up"). No wonder that later he was talking about the poem a lot; he had to feel that something was not quite right.

You see that these seemingly innocent topic is not as simple as it looks. No wonder that Pound being new to the oriental ways was like in fog. Nobody before me put this things so clearly. And talentless and clueless guys like andy will continue to talk their shambo-mambo and bullshit. Yeah, sure, get more awards, andy ; go, get publised (sic! -- published) more

Regards,

Senna Jawa (Wlodzimierz Holsztynski)

Senna

thanks for this post. I welcome the chance to learn something about a form I have so much trouble "getting"



m

 

[Senna Jawa]

kennings

Senna, I know you've explained this before

And so many times too, on many forums.

I would be very interested in a cogent definition of kenning as you understand it (maybe with an example or two if you have some).

You will not find such a definition in literature for the most important case of the skaldic kenning, which is (arguably) the most important for poets. First, I will mention briefly the broad kenning picture on the way to my definition of skaldic kenning and to extraction (which is my own notion but essential for the understanding the neighboring skaldic kenning; moreover, the extraction is much more common in poems than kennings, except for the skaldic poems).

The broad definition of kenning is syntactical:

B of A
​

or

A's B
​

Some people, especially during heated discussions, are ready to accept every such phrase as a kenning. Then it is a rather useless notion poetically wise. For the purpose of poetry the kenning takes off when there is a semantic dimension to it, namely, when phrase B alone means just B, but in the context "B of A" the phrase B means something else. Now we see the similarity and the difference between metaphors and kennings:

• Metaphor is a phrase B which means C.
• Kenning is a phrase "B of A", in which context B means C, while B alone means simply B.

This is the broadest, poetically useful definition of kenning. (But the narrower notion of the skaldic kenniing is still more useful).

We can see also why kennings and metaphors get confused: first a (specific) kenning "A of B" gets established, perhaps over years or just within a siingle, longer poem; then in new poems, or even later in the same poem, you don't need to have the whole phrase "B of A" to imply C -- now you may simply say "B" and it already means C. Of course, somehow, the readers have to be knowledgeable enough to know that there is "... of A" in the background, hence C is meant. Or somehow readers acquire the intuition, just from experience. It is very nice, because you get the full poetic advantage of phrase "B" to pass meaning C.

Let me stress again the main reason of confusing kennings with metaphors:

Over the time, a kenning can be reduced to a metaphor.
​

I'll give an example of this kenning --> metaphor evolution from my and r.a.p. past. Even before r.a.p. existed I have introduced the kenning of money:

the green butterflies of my pocket​

BTW, in the same poem I've introduced also "streetful" -- city homeless (as opposed to country homeless).

Back to kennings. Once presented to r.a.p., the kenning became public property, as good kennings do. Then it was enough to write "green butterflies", and r.a.p. knew that money was meant, while you had the image of green butterflies in front of your eyes. That's how words work in poetry -- the art of words.

This kenning of money is not just a kenning; according to my definition it is a skaldic kenning, its construction implicitly involves more than "B of A".

Angeline, let me continue later, in another thread, where I will get to the most important part. Sorry.

Best regards,

Senna Jawa (Wlodzimierz Holsztynski)

 

[Senna Jawa]

Senna

thanks for this post. I welcome the chance to learn something about a form I have so much trouble "getting"



m

Maria, once again you react in a positive way.

Let me mention that these are not any abstract considerations just for the sake of "philosophy". I always aim at assisting the working poet.

Consider the case of Pound and his poem (but it can be any of us and any of OUR poems). He had suddenly encountered the wonderful world of the Oriental poetry. It's only natural that he was overwhelmed, that it was not easy to get a good grip of it when there was so much to absorb. Thus he ran into juxtaposition but was conditioned more toward simile. As a result he had ended up with a (semantical) simile, which was only a false juxtaposition.

If he could see what was going on, like now you can and should!, then he would later write superior variations of his poem by striving at the true semantical juxtaposition, as he saw them in the poetry of the great Chinese poets like Du Fu, Li Bai, and others.

In the Chinese poems, when you have a jaxtaposition "A B" then both parts A and B truly work in the poem, neither is ficticious. In Pounds poem the component B is ficticious (the petal component) hence not too important psychologically to a reader (I was writing about it looooong time ago on r.a.p.). That's why Pound got only a small, fractional effect effect of a true juxtaposition, about say one third only. Indeed, when both A B parts belong to the core of the poem then you get more than twice the effect because you get also the non-fictitious, material interaction between A and B, which is the most important issue here.

Thus every time (well, not every-every time ) when you have a simile in your poem, you may ask yourself if you can replace it with juxtaposition. That would mean an enrichment artistically but the poem does not have to get longer. This is because a part of the text related to A can be transfered to B.

In each case when I analyze notions, I am not like theoreticians or others who just want to formulate things "in the best possible or most true way". I mean to assist the working poet in her/his writing process. I bring the horse to the river (and then I hear some noise about arm wrestling; that's life).

Best regards,

Senna Jawa

PS. Let me make up a not terribly serious illustration, but artistically serious and perfect for the discussion:

busy new york metro station
columns poles italians

​

wh,
2006-12-03

 

[Senna Jawa]

I welcome the chance to learn something about a form I have so much trouble "getting"

Maria, I just have checked your "Piercing..." poem, and not only. You seem to have a natural inclination toward the "A of B" construction, and potentially & ultimately toward the skaldic kenning. If you like, I may use elements of your poem in the knew thread about kennings to show how one may attempt improvements by the virtue of striving at clean constructions. Once you realize them you have a powerful tool to your disposal. Actually, it is amazing how well (good) kennings work, almost miraculously, it's truly truly amazing and worthwhile to pursue.

Best regards,

Senna Jawa

 

[MyNecroticSnail]

Maria, once again you react in a positive way.

Let me mention that these are not any abstract considerations just for the sake of "philosophy". I always aim at assisting the working poet.

Consider the case of Pound and his poem (but it can be any of us and any of OUR poems). He had suddenly encountered the wonderful world of the Oriental poetry. It's only natural that he was overwhelmed, that it was not easy to get a good grip of it when there was so much to absorb. Thus he ran into juxtaposition but was conditioned more toward simile. As a result he had ended up with a (semantical) simile, which was only a false juxtaposition.

If he could see what was going on, like now you can and should!, then he would later write superior variations of his poem by striving at the true semantical juxtaposition, as he saw them in the poetry of the great Chinese poets like Du Fu, Li Bai, and others.

In the Chinese poems, when you have a jaxtaposition "A B" then both parts A and B truly work in the poem, neither is ficticious. In Pounds poem the component B is ficticious (the petal component) hence not too important psychologically to a reader (I was writing about it looooong time ago on r.a.p.). That's why Pound got only a small, fractional effect effect of a true juxtaposition, about say one third only. Indeed, when both A B parts belong to the core of the poem then you get more than twice the effect because you get also the non-fictitious, material interaction between A and B, which is the most important issue here.

Thus every time (well, not every-every time ) when you have a simile in your poem, you may ask yourself if you can replace it with juxtaposition. That would mean an enrichment artistically but the poem does not have to get longer. This is because a part of the text related to A can be transfered to B.

In each case when I analyze notions, I am not like theoreticians or others who just want to formulate things "in the best possible or most true way". I mean to assist the working poet in her/his writing process. I bring the horse to the river (and then I hear some noise about arm wrestling; that's life).

Best regards,

Senna Jawa

PS. Let me make up a not terribly serious illustration, but artistically serious and perfect for the discussion:

busy new york metro station
columns poles italians

​

wh,
2006-12-03

Wading through, if I understand what you are saying, it is the juxtaposition of A to B which creates C, or the third point, that encloses the operating area of imagination.
What did you think of Fish's article?

 

[Senna Jawa]

What did you think of Fish's article?

What Fish's article? If it is about juxtaposition then perhaps you may provide the relevant quotes? There is a huge literature out there. In the past I had a pleasure to exchange emails with someone who had written his PhD thesis on kennings but on kennings in general, not on skaldic kennings. I have just recovered my copy of the wonderful work (from 1968--I was lucky to get it at that time) on skaldic kennings:

"Saga o Gunnlaugu
Wezowym Jezyku"

by​

Apolonia Zaluska-Stromberg
​

(in Polish). She made the point about the term A, of the expression "B of A", as modifying the meaning of B, in the context of skaldic kennings, but she'd make it in general too. That's what makes this construction valuable for poetry.

Regards,

Senna Jawa